2. Automation Level Description Pro Con
Stores the structural
solution of a pattern.
Inserts a group of related
classes onto a workspace
Prebuilt structures save
Dialog box prompts for
class and method names
before inserting a group of
related classes onto a
Integrates classes from
newly inserted patterns
with existing classes.
Typing class and method
names may be tedious and
Classes that have been
inserted as parts of patterns
intelligently respond to
changes in other parts of
the UML model
The integrity of patterns is
Developer may be
confused or feel restricted
when model auto-changes.
Table 1: Levels of Pattern Automation
3.1 The simple Template approach
An example of the simple template approach to design pattern automation can be found in UMLStudio
http://www.pragsoft.com. The user of this UML modelling tool browses through a catalog of design patterns, viewing
thumbnails of various designs. The user selects a design pattern implementation and it subsequently appears on the
workspace. Finally, the user makes any necessary modifications to the class and method names, often moving pre-
existing classes into positions occupied by the new classes from the template in order to fully integrate the pattern
classes into the existing UML model.
This series of operations is illustrated in the next three figures, steps 1 to 3. The goal is to use the Adaptor Pattern to
wrap the class Person.
Figure 1: Browsing through the UMLStudio pattern catalog.
Step 1 of 3.
3. Exisiting class
Figure 2: New classes implementing an Adaptor Pattern appear on the workspace.
(UMLStudio) Step 2 of 3.
Figure 3: Workspace after manual editing.
Step 3 of 3.
The point of using the Adaptor Pattern in this example is to adapt the interface of the Person class which consists of
the method IsActiveBuyer to a new interface in a new class, consisting of the method GoodBuyer.
In order to achieve this goal, we need to customise the classes that were dropped onto our workspace from the design
patterns catalog. This is a manual process since there is no further automation offered by the UMLStudio tool. Figure
3, above, shows the final result. To achieve this result we manually had to do the following:
1. Replace the new Adaptee class with our pre-existing Person class.
2. Preserve the wiring between the Adapter class and the Adaptee/Person class.
3. Rename the generic methods provided by the new Adaptor Pattern classes to methods appropriate to the
class being adapted. Thus the method Request is manually renamed GoodBuyer. The method
SpecificRequest is manually renamed IsActiveBuyer.
4. Write the code shown in the UML text comment box of Figure 3.
The need to manually customise the classes that are copied out of the template library is this technique’s biggest
drawback. The pre-existing Person class shown in step 1 is ignored by the Adaptor Pattern template - the new
classes from the adaptor pattern template library are not automatically integrated with the existing Person class.
It would save manual editing if the user of the modelling tool first selected the class that he or she wanted to adapt, then
applied the Adaptor pattern. The resulting group of classes would wire themselves and integrate with the selected
class. Let us now examine the details of this more advanced approach.
3.1.1 Parameterised Pattern Templates
A more dynamic and intelligent approach to pattern automation is offered by TogetherJ
http://www.oi.com/together.htm and Modelmaker www.delphicase.com. These UML modellers / IDE’s allows you to
attach patterns to existing classes and offer the ability to customise aspects of the template’s application using wizard
4. Here we use Modelmaker to apply the Wrapper Pattern to the Person class:
Figure 4: Steps in applying the Wrapper Pattern (Modelmaker).
The steps in applying Wrapper Pattern in ModelMaker as shown in Figure 4 are:
1. Locate the class you want to wrap and create a wrapping class that points to it.
2. Select the pointer attribute and click on the “Apply Wrapper Pattern” icon.
3. In the dialog box which lists the methods of the class being wrapped, select any methods that you want to
appear in the new wrapper class. Click OK.
4. The pattern has now been applied and is added to ModelMaker’s list of active patterns being used in the
5. Notice the Wrapping class now has a new method ‘GoodBuyer’ which simply delegates to the
IsActiveBuyer methods of the wrapped ‘Person’ class.
The benefit of Parameterised Pattern Templates is that the new classes and methods are integrated with existing classes
and methods, since the currently selected UML object and the ‘parameters’ asked for in the wizard during the design
pattern automation process give the tool the necessary information to do the integration.
An additional benefit of Parameterised Pattern Templates is that usually, after the dialog completes, there is little to no
manual coding to do. For example, Modelmaker actually generates the code mapping the call to the new method
(AdaptedPerson.GoodBuyer) into a call to the existing adapted class method (Person.IsActiveBuyer).
A drawback to Parameterised Pattern Templates is that you are usually locked into a modal dialog box - typing and
remembering class and method names is tedious and error-prone, unless a namespace browsing facility is provided.
5. Other tools, like TogetherJ offer additional features like a drag and drop GUI, so that for example, specifying adaptor
and adaptee classes is done with a drag of the mouse.
Figure 5: Select a pattern and tweak the parameters. (TogetherJ).
3.1.2 Super Parameterised Pattern Templates
Cogent, by Vlissides et. al. uses wizards (dialog boxes with multiple pages of parameters - see figure 7.) to strongly
customise the pattern implementation automation process. Wizards allow the designer to consider and choose various
trade-offs, ultimately generating different code.
For example, when Cogent applies the composite pattern, the sort of questions asked are: Whether to cache. Whether to
use linked list vs. stretchable arrays. Whether to access via simple index vs. iterator. Whether class management API
should include append/prepend, insert/remove operations. Whether to declare child management operations in all
classes or in composite class only. Whether to raise exception under certain conditions etc.
The big promise of this approach is that the designer can more readily fit the pattern implementation to the exact needs
of his or her problem.
3.1.3 Dynamic Intelligent patterns
Modelmaker www.delphicase.com goes one further step in pattern automation and offers the idea that patterns are
dynamic first class citizens in a UML model. Once applied, the modelling tool remembers which classes are involved
in the pattern and actively protects the pattern from accidental damage.
Additionally, as parts of the model change, the classes and methods involved in the pattern are automatically updated as
necessary. For example, if an adapted method name changes, the code in the wrapping class method will automatically
be altered to call the renamed method. Similarly, if an adapted method is deleted, the wrapping class method will also
This sort of dynamism can get quite complicated yet beneficial. For example, a more complicated pattern like Visitor
requires that each visitor class has a visit_xxx method for each class to be visited. When dynamic patterns are being
enforced, each time you add a new class to be visited e.g. the CleaningLady class, all visitor classes automatically
get a new method called visitCleaningLady. Thus the integrity of the visitor pattern is maintained.
To some, the whole idea of pattern automation is a contentious issue. This is because a design pattern is actually a
reasonably complex document describing a problem in a given context surrounded by various forces. Any solutions
offered in design pattern documents are qualified by thorough discussions of the various trade-offs of using certain
designs and implementations over others, given various context and forces. Thus a pattern is not just a solution
structure consisting of a UML diagram, rather it is an essay for the designer to read, think about and ultimately adapt
what is learnt to his or her needs.
6. Are Refactoring Tools Doing
It could be argued that refactorings Fowler (1999) are related to and in some
cases similar to Patterns. They encapsulate proven ‘moves’ in the chess game
of refactoring code. Some refactorings go so far as to encapsulate proven
designs e.g. ‘Change Unidirectional Association to Bidirectional’, (p200,
Refactoring) show the best way to implement a bidirectional association.
Similarly, ‘Duplicate Observed Data’ (p 189, Refactoring) shows how to
implement the Observer Pattern.
Source code editors with refactoring support are becoming more popular and
moving from their original use in Smalltalk circles to the more mainstream
Java community, more recently to the Python community and beyond.
Figure 6: Examples of refactoring editors and refactoring tools that plug
into existing IDE’s. Clockwise from the top - Jrefactory plug-in, Eclipse,
In fact a designer may encounter situations where none of the sample implementations offered in the design pattern
document are suitable to the designer’s particular situation, or possible to implement in the implementation language
available (e.g. it may be a non-object oriented language). In these cases the designer will need to invent a custom
solution based solely on the ideas discussed in the design pattern document.
Thus the idea of automating this entire complex process can therefore seem ludicrous, given the amount of design,
human thought, and customization of solution structures often (or perhaps always?) required.
4.1 What aspect of patterns
should be automated
The rebuttal to the objection that
“pattern automation should not be
attempted at all” is to be found in
distinguishing exactly what aspect
of design pattern process software
tools are really trying to automate.
Are they really trying to replace
the designer’s deliberations or
merely assisting the designer in the
mundane and often complex task
of implementing the pattern?
The tools so far described in fact
do not replace the designer’s
deliberations in choosing which
pattern to use at any given time.
The tools do not replace the need
for the designer to understand how
and why he or she is using a
particular pattern. Nor do the tools
replace the need for the designer to
understand the balance of forces
and trade-offs involved in
choosing different solution
Once the designer has decided
what sort of pattern solution is
required, then what the pattern
automation tools can help him or
her with, is the moderately
complex and careful surgery
required to implement that pattern
solution into a UML diagram or
into source code.
4.2 Fitting the pattern to
Gamma et. al (1993) say in Design
Patterns, p. 3: “Design Patterns
are not about designs such as
linked lists and hash tables that can
be encoded in classes and reused as is. Nor are they complex, domain-specific designs for an entire application or
subsystem. The design patterns in this book are descriptions of communicating objects and classes that are customized
to solve a general design problem in a particular context.”
Thus an important argument against the idea of automating pattern ‘implementations’ is that by the time the design
process has considered all the forces in the designer’s context and the designer has adapted the pattern solution to fit his
or her unique situation, then the implementation stage will involve coding up something that is quite unique. Pattern
automation tools that offer out of the box solution structures are unlikely to ever match what the designer really wants -
even when you take into account the customisation features of the tool.
The problem of fitting the automated pattern templates to the exact problem at hand might in principle always be a
mismatch in the sense that say, hand crafted solutions might always be better. A custom tailored suit is always going to
7. fit someone better than an off the rack suit. But do we go further and say that in principle each pattern implementation
is necessarily going to be unique? Do pattern implementations always need to be ‘custom tailored’?
Let us remember that there are also benefits to non-custom tailored approaches - standards, comprehensibility,
maintainability, proven and efficient designs etc. If there is room, in principle, for pattern solution template libraries
then these benefits should not be overlooked.
It is also likely that given the wide variety of patterns, that some patterns are more suitable to be automated than others.
It is my experience that some patterns, with suitable wizards, are quite suitable for automation e.g. Adapter, Visitor,
Strategy. This is not to deny that there are variations of these patterns that are not handled by my current automation
4.3 Adding your own patterns to pattern solution
Designers are of course not restricted to the implementation
solutions offered in a pattern catalog - some tools in fact offer
the capability of allowing custom pattern implementations to be
added to the pattern catalog, thereby increasing the relevance of
the pattern implementations offered by the pattern automation
tool. PsiGene Heister et. al (1997) for example describes a
framework specific tool (for house/building simulation) which
allows proven custom, domain specific patterns to be easily re-
used. Thus developers can build catalogs of pattern solution
implementations which are suited to their organisation,
language and problem domain.
A drawback to custom templates which designers add to a
catalog themselves, is that these pattern templates do not have
the advanced customisation wizards that come with standard
patterns. This is because wizards need to be carefully designed
and are complex enough that they need to be implemented by
the automation pattern tool makers themselves.
4.3.1 The Promise of Wizards
Despite the fact that complex wizards are probably only going
to be supplied by pattern automation tool makers, and not by
tool users, I believe that, besides having a variety of solution
structures to choose from in a catalog, parameterised patterns
with smart wizards offer the designer a promising way of
generating unique solutions - better fitting his or her context
and forces. For example, in my experience, a flexible
Adaptor/Wrapper Pattern automation wizard copes with many
adapting/wrapping situations. On the other hand, a Composite
Pattern Wizard is actually not offered in ModelMaker because,
as the author of ModelMaker told me: ‘Every composite pattern
situation is different.’!! I ended up adding a custom composite
pattern to the ModelMaker catalog, which suited my needs at
the time - and this worked very well. It was easily
parameterised, asking me the names of methods and classes but
of course had no smart wizard to accompany it.
Cogent, co-designed by one of the Design Patterns book
authors, Vlissedes, on the other hand does take on the challenge
and does offer a Composite Pattern wizard, albeit a complex
one (see Figure 7). This wizard comes with the Cogent tool.
The big promise of wizards is that the designer can more
readily fit the pattern implementation to the exact needs of his or her problem. However, until there is a large library of
radically alternate implementations of patterns available, plus very smart wizards, most designers will probably still
feel restricted by the available pattern template choices - despite the levels of customization being offered.
Intriguingly, once such libraries and smart wizards exist, then the process of modelling may radically change and
become more like piecing together smart lego blocks rather than hand crafting every class and relationship manually.
In the hands of a disciplined and experienced designer such tools would indeed be powerful.
Figure 7: Composite Pattern Wizard (Cogent)
8. 4.4 Patterns as Lego pieces in the hands of babes
There is the very real possibility that inexperienced designers will be tempted to piece together architectures using
pattern templates supplied with an automation tool, without really understanding the traditional role of patterns in
resolving the forces arising in a Object Oriented analysis and design process.
And there is also the danger that designers will attempt to twist their designs in order to take advantage of groovy
pattern implementations offered by their pattern automation tool. This may even lead to situations where a particular
pattern implementation may do only 80% of what is really required yet the designer still uses it, hoping to take
advantage of time savings. In this case the designer will need to implement the rest of the functionality manually.
Conversely, if a particular pattern implementation does more than required, the excess code in the design will confuse
programmers, unless it can be safely removed. Furthermore some dynamic intelligent pattern tools (e.g. as used in
Modelmaker) may actually resist such manual fine tuning (hence preserving pattern integrity), thus restricting the
programmer, and forcing upon the design too much code, some of which is unnecessary.
Then again, if the software works and delivers the functional requirements asked of it, does it really matter all that
much if the solution has been over-engineered, or built out of pre-fabricated parts? These same age-old philosophical
questions relating to hand crafted vs. factory produced surely arise in other industries too? e.g. engineering, tailoring
and furniture manufacturing etc.
In the end, I think that yes, in some situations, highly customised solutions will be necessary, and no automated tool is
going to help you. In other situations, standard implementation solutions will actually be sufficient, especially with the
ability to customise a choice of standard implementations using complex wizards.
Interestingly, automation facilities, especially wizards, will probably serve to educate designers and programmer as to
the trade offs they should be considering, since reading dialog boxes and being guided through choosing options
representing trade-offs will be helpful in supplementing one’s reading and understanding of original design pattern
5 Other Aspects of Pattern Automation
5.1 Comparing Refactoring Automation and Pattern Automation
Interestingly, the idea of automating ‘refactorings’ is not as controversial as pattern automation. Refactoring editors1
certainly save time and keystrokes. Nobody is concerned about the pitfalls of having smarter, more automated code
Then again, the current range of ‘moves’ offered by refactoring tools2
are suitably low level such that they cannot spark
any controversy relating to attempting to replace the design process. For example, the automated refactoring ‘Extract
Method’ wizard takes the selected lines of code, prompts you for a method name, and automatically replaces the
selected code with a method call - placing the selected code into a new method for you. This is no doubt a helpful tool.
However as soon as you automate other more advanced refactorings like ‘Duplicate Observed Data’ (Observer Pattern)
etc. you then stray into the same controversial territory as pattern automation. Namely, you are automating a particular
implementation of a pattern rather than using one’s understanding of a pattern to inform your design deliberations and
5.2 Software Assistance in Keeping Track of Patterns
As patterns (especially dynamic, intelligent, self protecting patterns) become first class citizens of a model, it makes
sense to know which patterns have been used in a model and where these patterns live. Whilst there are conventions
for representing the presence of patterns in a UML diagram Booch et. al (1999) there is no standard way to represent
their presence in a modelling tool.
Java refactoring support can be found in the Jrefactory plug-in from Instantiations (see footnote below), Eclipse (free
from www.eclipse.org and IntelliJ www.intellij.com. Python refactoring support can be found in Bicycle Repair Man
Interestingly, Instantiations (2002) www.instantiations.com makers of refactoring support tools for Java in the
JBuilder, VisualAge and WebSphere IDE’s have expanded their offerings to more than just automated refactoring
tools. They have recently added to their product line wizard based pattern automation support for nine patterns found
in the Design Patterns book, plus three other patterns specifically related to the Java language. This development
further indicates the related nature of refactoring tools and pattern automation tools.
9. An interesting approach has been adopted by the modelling tool Modelmaker. It lets you view a list of patterns that
have been applied in the model. This view allows the designer to see which classes and methods are affected by each
Figure 8: The list of patterns used in a UML model. (Modelmaker).
Clicking on each pattern in the left hand pane, in Figure 8 will display the affected classes in the right hand pane.
Pattern properties can be modified from this view. Patterns can also be deleted in their entirety from the model, using
5.2.1 Aspects and Code Sections
When a pattern is implemented its implementation may be scattered over a number of classes, and involves numerous
methods and attributes. More to the point, a pattern implementation may involve not just entire new methods but
rather, just a few lines of code in an existing method.
Aspect Oriented Programming promises to elevate these ‘snippets of code’ within methods to first class entities.
Aspects can be weaved into classes as required.
A similar but alternative approach used by Modelmaker is to break methods up into things called code sections. Each
code section is ‘owned’ by either the user of the modelling tool, or by a pattern. Code sections (or aspects) owned by
patterns are read-only and cannot be modified, except by altering the pattern properties. Sometimes entire methods or
attributes are owned by a pattern, allowing this particular modelling tool to ‘protect’ its living patterns from being
clobbered by developers thus enforcing the patterns’ integrity.
Pattern Automation tools are useful tools - as long as they are used wisely by designers who are already educated in
patterns. Pattern Automation tools cannot replace the designers understanding of when and where to use patterns.
As long as designers appreciate that they have at their disposal pattern implementation automation tools, and as long as
designers resist the temptation to use the same fixed implementation every time they need a particular pattern - just
because it is included in the tool, then pattern automation can play an increasingly important role in the construction of
software, especially when smarter wizards and larger repositories of pattern solutions become available.
As a rule of thumb, given these provisos, if the facilities offered by automation tools help your implementations - go
ahead and use them. If your needs are more specialised, then of course you are on your own and will need to hand code
My own hope is that pattern automation tools will continue to provide advanced facilities for the maintenance, self-
preservation and identification of where patterns have been applied. In this way patterns will live as first class entities
in designs rather than being mere inspirations for design that perhaps corrode and are forgotten about over time.
GAMMA, E, HELM, R, JOHNSON, R and VLISSIDES, J. (1993): Design Patterns: Abstraction and Reuse of Object-
MARTIN, R, RIEHLE, D and BUSCHMANN, F (1998): Programming Languages of Program Design Volume 3. See
also volumes 1, 2 and 4.
FOWLER, M (1999): Refactoring: Improving the design of existing code.
BUDINSKY, F et. al. and VLISSIDES, J. (1996): Cogent: Automatic Code Generation from Design Patterns. IBM
Research Journal Volume 35, Number 2, 1996 http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/352/budinsky.html
HEISTER, F, RIEGEL, J, MARTIN S, SCHULZ, S, ZIMMERMANN, G (1997): PsiGene: A Pattern-Based
Application Generator for Building Simulation. Computer Science Department, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
BOOCH, G, RUMBAUGH, J, JACOBSON, I (1999): The Unified Modelling Language User Guide, p.388
10. 7.1.1 Additional reading
SCHMIDT D.C, STAL, M, ROHNERT, H AND BUSCHMANN, F (2000): POSA2: Pattern-Oriented Software
Architecture: Patterns for Concurrent and Networked Objects has some references to further pattern automation
FLORIJN, G, MEIJERS, M AND WINSEN, P. V. (1997): Tool support for object-oriented patterns. Proceedings of
ECOOP, 1997 describes the design internals of how patterns can be represented inside software automation tools.